What the hell were the Diamondbacks thinking :confused:
Printable View
What the hell were the Diamondbacks thinking :confused:
Bringing up injuries with no history or age factor is pretty useless. You always evaluate based on what you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by skudplayr
I really appreciate Zduriencik for that. I think this makes up for him screwing us on Washburn. If he hadn't turned that down, we couldn't have stolen Scherzer.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
Astute observation Watson.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/files/...ock_holmes.jpg
1) i didn't say it was a terrible or even a bad deal for the yanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
2) i see a third consistent trend, at least from a few..and thats the underrating of what the yankees gave up. some/you act as if they gave up nothing because they could replace it. its still talent they could have used in a different trade elsewhere. I think Coke had alot of value for them, as he pitched in almost half their games, is young and still developing, had good WHIP numbers. Young developing lefty's with his potential are not a drop in the bucket.
3) i think granderson is overrated. sure he's had some pop in massive DET but i've watched alot of his games and he seems overmatched at the plate alot. his OBP this year was very low, he strikes out a ton and defensively (or baserunning for that matter) i don't see him as much of an upgrade over what NYY had in CF. They added some pop to a lineup that didn't need it, and moved alot of other resources that could have been used to bring in a Halladay or other top flight arm.
4) his contract is cheaper than i thought it was, but i wouldn't exactly call it cheap. not pricey though in yankee terms.
and btw, calling Coke "homer prone" based upon one season pitching alot of games in a park that yielded what i believe was the most HR's in the history of baseball is kind of unfair.
my point is, he had good value, its not as if he was worthless. and IMO he will be a very good relief pitcher.
Is Matt Holiday available?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Coke isn't exactly young, he's 28. I really doubt he's getting much better.
Obviously the Yanks gave up SOME things of value (otherwise the Tigers don't make the deal), but they already have better players that do what the guys they gave up do. Jackson is really the only one they traded that would've contributed to any major deal anyway. If it's a Roy Halladay deal, the Jays don't give a damn about Phil Coke or Ian Kennedy.
he's 28 with only one MLB season, one which was really not that bad at all. He spent alot of time in the minors as a starter, and I feel is still developing into the RP role. I don't see why one wouldn't think he'd get better??? He's a quality, improving, and most importantly cheap RP.Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
you assume the yanks have better players to take the place of Coke and Kennedy. I think Cokes loss willl hurt their pen, he pitched in over 70 games last year. I think Kennedy is easily replaceable as to me he had the least value in the trade...but I don't think for a second the Jays would have zero interest in Coke and/or Kennedy. Obviously they wouldn't be a cornerstone. I don't think the yanks improved that much for the talent they gave up, whether they can replace it or not it still has a value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Yes, obviously, "it has value." That's beside the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Coke had a pretty WHIP...due to a .220 batting average on balls in play. Good money's on that not being repeated.
Coke isn't a terrible player. He's a 27 year old decent middle reliever...but...that's all he is. Decent middle relievers are plentiful and the Yankees understand that. Giving up a decent middle reliever, a fringe starting pitcher prospect with health issues and a good center field prospect with a lot of flaws that need to be addressed if he's going to be a solid contributor in the majors is not a lot to give up for an established All-Star caliber center fielder.
His OBP was low this year because of a drop in batting average (more specifically, BABIP), not because of a poor plate approach. He walks 70 times a year and when his average is around .280, he has a solid OBP. Career OBP of .344, above average for a center fielder and better than both Melky Cabrera and Brett Gardner...and of course, he has as much power as them combined and doubled. And he is certainly an upgrade both defensively and on the bases from Cabrera. Gardner's a better baserunner and may be comparable defensively, but the offensive difference is huge between them. There is no way that Granderson is anything but a significant upgrade in center field.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
For a player of his caliber, it is cheap. He's a 3-4 win player, which is worth about $15 million on the open market.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
They didn't give up anybody that would hold up a deal for a guy like Halladay. The Blue Jays would be targeting young guys with very high upside, like Phil Hughes, not middle relievers in their late 20's.
I disagree with metsguy. Whether or not the prospects pan out, this deal is a great deal for the Tigers. You can't be so results-orientated in things like this. Let's say bottom of the ninth, 2 outs and you pinch hit for Albert Pujols, and that guy hits a home run. Did the manager make a good call? Of course not.
The wealth of prospects with incredible upside that the Tigers received while giving up payroll and a possibly declining player is awesome. Not saying that Granderson isn't great, but he does have some issues with reliability and the Yanks are gambling that 2009 was more of a fluke than a sign of regression.
All in all, a great haul for the Tigers, and even if Jackson and Kennedy live up to their promise, it would be more luck than having gotten a good deal done for the DBacks. Oh and good job by the Yanks, too.
Thing about Granderson in 09 was that he did change his approach to be more fly ball heavy, so I don't know if the BABIP is going to go back up.
On the other hand, he's gonna hit way more bombs playing in Yankee Stadium. So he'll be getting his for the Yankees, and he'll probably be a consistent 4 win player. Way better than Melky and Gardner
Here's a good piece on that. His xBABIP for 2009 was .301, lower than his career but higher than his actual 2009 BABIP. xBABIP takes batted ball distribution into account. So, as the article says:Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
Quote:
So we can ballpark it and say half of his dip in BABIP can be attributed to bad luck, and about half can be chalked up to a change in batted ball distribution.
Yep. Granderson seems like a guy who can really take advantage of Yankee Stadium - a pull hitter with a strong flyball tendency. Fangraphs just posted a piece on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
Even so, even this year as a roughly league average hitter, he was a 3 win player.
to each their own....i dont' see it as the "significant' upgrade you do but we'll just let it play out. Sure its an upgrade in CF, somewhat, but IMO not "significant' considering an already thin bullpen loses one of its more valuable guys, they lose depth in the rotation and a young top prospect.
And is Granderson truly an everyday player? I'd personally rather see Melky or Gardner against lefties and thats saying very very very little. He's terrible and i'm sure the numbers will support that.
Granderson's career OPS is 100 points higher than both Cabrera and Gardner - and that's with Granderson's poor performance against lefties.. Both Cabrera and Gardner are what they are - below average hitters that can play all 3 outfield positions above average. They're 4th outfielders or very weak starters.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Granderson is one of the top center fielders in the game. Who is better than him? Carlos Beltran, certainly. Grady Sizemore, Matt Kemp, maybe Torii Hunter....Franklin Gutierrez maybe.
Yes, he's terrible against lefties. Sitting him against tough lefties wouldn't be a bad plan. But, he's been playing against lefties the last 3 years and his overall value has still been 3-4 wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
the "not an everyday player" stuff is silly. He's a 4 win player regardless of what he does against left handers, he's a 4 win player even if he never plays against a lefty, and those wins count the same no matter how often he is in the lineup.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
You're right to point out that the Yanks do have a thin bullpen, so losing Coke doesn't exactly help that. However, Coke wasn't exactly Matt Thornton. They probably feel that they could plug in Mike Dunn right now and equal that production. And, well, it's the Yankees, so they can replace Coke's production off the FA list fairly easily.
And that's why this deal is so good for the Yanks. Granderson might continue to decline, but there is absolutely no risk to the organization in this move. You can't say that about the Tigers, who are screwed if Jackson doesn't pan out. Really cant' say that about the Dbacks.
Ian Kennedy is nothing to give up. "Depth in the rotation"? I mean, yeah, I guess technically he's "depth"...as in, like 7th or 8th on their depth chart....certainly not a big loss and incredibly easy to replace. Phil Coke, again, I think you're really overrating him and I don't see why. He's not a shutdown reliever. He's a decent middle reliever without much upside. There are tons of guys floating freely around the minors that can approximate his 2009 level of performance (the Yankees have some guys like that like Michael Dunn).
Austin Jackson is a nice guy to have, but really can't be considered a "top prospect" at this point as he really hasn't progressed much. He's got no power and there's been some concern about his ability to stick in center field, backed up by him having spent time in left and right this past year. If he can't stick in center field, he becomes a bench guy because he doesn't have the power to be a regular in a corner spot. His minor league performance looks a lot like Brett Gardner's except with a lot more strikeouts and not as many walks.
worst deal ever for ny..
You've said this twice now and it's no truer now than it was then.Quote:
Originally Posted by jpz17
The dood is a Yankee fan so anything he says is true. Get outta here.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Amazing deal for New York. Wish the Sox could make a deal like this haha.
rumor has it, according to weei, that DET was looking for a "package" that included either Ellsbury or Buchholz and this was AFTER asking for both for Granderson. Unknown if anything else was included by DET. or coming to the Sox from a third team.Quote:
Originally Posted by rschusta24
I'd have a hard time trading either straight up for Granderson personally.
I saw similar rumors.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I'd trade the three guys NY traded for either Ellsbury or Buchholz alone, personally, and I'm not a fan of Ellsbury.
If that was the price Detroit was demanding from Boston, I find it odd that they took so much less from New York.
I would of liked it haha. Of course they are both very young and there is always that feeling they could break out into something even bigger than they are, but I kinda wouldn't mind Granderson.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Well, they did that because the NY deal had Scherzer involved, and Scherzer > Buchholz.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM